Not sure how reliable this is, but a friend of mine in Chicago says ORD-MAN/BXH/OSL will operate next year on 757 aircraft, KIX will return and ICN will be added (but daytime flight, not to compete with Asiana).

ORD-OSL is 60 miles longer than the default limit of EWR-TXL. EWR-TXL is operated in the winter with 762 equipment due to heavy winds. Maybe the headwinds are not as bad with a routing that's more north than EWR-TXL or ORD may be able to fit these flights in without delay.
But, these additions would indicate some CO 752s will be repositioned into ORD. That means either remaining CO 752 domestic flights may be cut and replaced by 739ER new deliveries OR that UA select 763ERs may be diverted from domestic routings to EWR-Europe and replaced by 753 or 739ER units.
These potential additions are where the merger will help in allowing reassignment of existing aircraft and backfilling those aircraft with new 739ER deliveries and/or reassignment of some 753 aircraft.
I'd say look for more of these types of additions, including some shorter, less-competitive IAD markets with 752 aircraft.

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 3):CO 752 domestic flights may be cut and replaced by 739ER new deliveries OR that UA select 763ERs may be diverted from domestic routings to EWR-Europe and replaced by 753 or 739ER units.

I'm thinking more 767s and 777s on EWR-Europe to free up more 757s for ORD. CO barely has any 757s running domestic in the US right now.

Quoting timberwolf24 (Reply 6):If UA does add these flight I will be interested to see what AA response will be. Will AA run or will they begin to rebuild their international presents from ORD again?

Is there enough "pie" to go around in Chicago like NYC has for DL, AA, and CO? It seems like AA has a nice deal going with their two fortress hubs in MIA and DFW, and their decent presence at LAX, JFK, and ORD.

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 5):I'm thinking more 767s and 777s on EWR-Europe to free up more 757s for ORD. CO barely has any 757s running domestic in the US right now.

You could also shift from EWR to ORD. Both various cities from EWR are 2X 752. Moving, say the 10p bank to ORD, could open up new routes, new connections, but not add a flood of new seats to the market.

Quoting tpaewr (Reply 10):
You could also shift from EWR to ORD. Both various cities from EWR are 2X 752. Moving, say the 10p bank to ORD, could open up new routes, new connections, but not add a flood of new seats to the market.

And I guarantee you some of these EWR TATL markets have been "right sized" by CO for too long. OSL might even be able to handle a daily UA 763 if they just combined it into one evening flight -- and hey, one less 757 rotation that means less EWR congestion. Also another 757 route which is nonsense, EWR-LHR which can be operated by a 763 or even additional 777 instead. Many of these TATL markets with 2x 757s can be combined into one 767.

Why would ORD see service to these markets before IAD? I would think IAD would see service to strong CO markets (LIS, MAD, TLV immediately come to mind) before ORD would. The next European stations to see service from ORD would be, IMO, existing UA destinations of ZRH and/or DME.

Well, KIX was the old UA gateway to GUM when they used to fly there in the 90's. Maybe with onward connectivity to HND (with NH) and GUM (on CO Mike) it will make sense, but I would think UA would want to restart NGO before giving ORD-KIX yet another try.

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 13):And I guarantee you some of these EWR TATL markets have been "right sized" by CO for too long. OSL might even be able to handle a daily UA 763 if they just combined it into one evening flight -- and hey, one less 757 rotation that means less EWR congestion. Also another 757 route which is nonsense, EWR-LHR which can be operated by a 763 or even additional 777 instead. Many of these TATL markets with 2x 757s can be combined into one 767.

I agree! Plus you open markets X/ORD that you don't have via EWR. In addtion 3 cabin UA A/C are better suited for EWR-LHR, while CO's are better for ORD-BHX. I am sure the coming years will see lots of shuffling

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 13):And I guarantee you some of these EWR TATL markets have been "right sized" by CO for too long. OSL might even be able to handle a daily UA 763 if they just combined it into one evening flight -- and hey, one less 757 rotation that means less EWR congestion. Also another 757 route which is nonsense, EWR-LHR which can be operated by a 763 or even additional 777 instead. Many of these TATL markets with 2x 757s can be combined into one 767.

CO has done very well for themselves by offering this type of frequency to markets that most US carriers don't even serve. 2x daily allows for more connection opportunities. Splitting up the frequency to one ORD one EWR both departing around the same time may open up a few more markets but it restricts the the connections.

Hypothetically on a RDU-EWR-DUB flight where the EWR-DUB flight leaves at 7pm or 10pm I have a variety of options for RDU-EWR as long as I depart before 6-7. If you take away the 10pm flight and move it to a 7pm ORD-OSL then regardless where I connect I have to leave RDU no later than 3-4. If you are going to split up the frequencies at EWR at least alter the departure time

Quoting tpaewr (Reply 18):while CO's are better for ORD-BHX. I am sure the coming years will see lots of shuffling

I hope so. CO's EWR growth strategy has been rather conservative in recent years.

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 20):CO has done very well for themselves by offering this type of frequency to markets that most US carriers don't even serve. 2x daily allows for more connection opportunities. Splitting up the frequency to one ORD one EWR both departing around the same time may open up a few more markets but it restricts the the connections.

Yeah but at the same time it's redundant. You use more frequencies for those commuter flights, leading to more congestion, and sometimes those flights go out empty to fill up another 757 when you can just use a larger plane at one time of the day and condense those ERJ and Q400 frequencies to fill up a 737 or 319/320 instead. Not to mention there is a true lack of premium cabin on some of these regional markets out of EWR in which they could use one. CO used to fly DC-10s and 767s on many of these TATL routes that have gone to 2x 757 a day. One of the reasons is CO just didn't take deliveries of as many 767 and 777 as they should have back in the day.

Imagine this is really BHX? Balhash, Kazakstahn seems a small market from ORD!

If ORD-BHX does happen would it be seasonal, complimentary to the EWR flight or replacement? CO can only keep EWR going 6x weekly in the winter at the moment so I can't see ORD and EWR in the winter. If this does occur would this put an end to any chance of AA or DL service to the US from BHX? Much as I would like a DL or AA flight (another way home for me) I just can't see that much demand from BHX at the moment, too many people from the Midlands still head to MAN or for some reason LHR.

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 20):CO has done very well for themselves by offering this type of frequency to markets that most US carriers don't even serve. 2x daily allows for more connection opportunities. Splitting up the frequency to one ORD one EWR both departing around the same time may open up a few more markets but it restricts the the connections.

Hypothetically on a RDU-EWR-DUB flight where the EWR-DUB flight leaves at 7pm or 10pm I have a variety of options for RDU-EWR as long as I depart before 6-7. If you take away the 10pm flight and move it to a 7pm ORD-OSL then regardless where I connect I have to leave RDU no later than 3-4. If you are going to split up the frequencies at EWR at least alter the departure time

Current:
EWR-DUB 710 752
EWR-DUB 955 752

New
EWR-DUB 9pm 762
IAD-DUB 10pm 752
ORD-DUB 7pm 752

That fact crossed my mind when I posted above. I guess you just can't have your cake and eat it too. I suspect the greater conx to the Midwest and/or South, out weight the gain 2X daily offers from EWR.

We may see diff markets get diff results depending on traffic flow. Some will likely do better with more diverse conx while others will be more EWR/NYC centric. It will be fun to watch play out.

If UA aircraft are used to attract First Class, it could only generate enough pax to fill the small cabins of 10 seats on the 772ER and 6 on the 763ER.

Questions:
Is gaining limited First Class seats worth dropping tons of total seats from a market?
Will the merged carrier try to move connections thru IAD and ORD to reduce seat required from EWR?
Is the UA Business Class more or less desirable than CO's configuration?
How much extra revenue does UA's Y+ gain vs. CO's Y?

The best solution might be to pull some 763ERs from UA domestic system and Hawaii, then substitute 763ERs for some 752 flights in the first bank from EWR. The 763ERs can be freed by subbing selected flights with 753, 738/739ER or doubling up on some domestic hub-to-hub flights.
This would result in an equal number of 752s becoming available for new international service from ORD and IAD service.
To accomplish this, it would seem at least a few domestic 763ERs could be converted to International configs.

Is this a problem? CO's EWR hub is almost fully built out to Europe. Any future growth to Europe will likely be beefing up to *A hubs. I don't see much Eastern Europe expansion coming for CO, the real additions will be to Asia/Africa with the 787, IMO.

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 21):One of the reasons is CO just didn't take deliveries of as many 767 and 777 as they should have back in the day.

It's likely CO would have gone broke with too much excess capacity during the leaner years post-9/11. It was a conservative decision, but one that led to the sustainability of the carrier. The aircraft financing game is a tricky one, and you really can't fly planes you can't afford. With that said, CO's only widebody cancellations were of 10 767s in 2001/02 and the handful of 777s somewhat recently. Most order changes have been deferrals.

I also would disagree with the strategy of dismantling CO's 10pm Europe bank and shipping it to ORD/IAD. It's no secret that business travelers prefer flexibility in schedules, and with multiple departures to most destinations, CO can offer the all-important NYC traveler more options than other carriers. It is a strong competitive advantage. Plus, CO's utilization model often calls for short turns at international outstations, so later arrivals in the EU permit more desirable early afternoon westbound departures without sacrificing revenue-producing hours.

CO's RR 752s are really only effective to the British Isles from ORD. While ORD-DUB/MAN/GLA/EDI/BHX are certainly potential markets for the carrier post-merger, the 757 will not be the sea-change it was at EWR.

Quoting CODC10 (Reply 26):It's likely CO would have gone broke with too much excess capacity during the leaner years post-9/11. It was a conservative decision, but one that led to the sustainability of the carrier. The aircraft financing game is a tricky one, and you really can't fly planes you can't afford. With that said, CO's only widebody cancellations were of 10 767s in 2001/02 and the handful of 777s somewhat recently. Most order changes have been deferrals.

I thought CO was doing really well in the late 1990s when they were buying these planes? Financing new planes seemed like something they were more capable of at the time compared to other carriers.

Quoting CODC10 (Reply 26):I also would disagree with the strategy of dismantling CO's 10pm Europe bank and shipping it to ORD/IAD.

IAD has got the room to expand. EWR does not. It would make sense to do as per what the CEO says: move larger aircraft up to EWR which frees up other aircraft for international expansion and reduces conjestion (likely ORD and IAD.)

Is this a problem? CO's EWR hub is almost fully built out to Europe. Any future growth to Europe will likely be beefing up to *A hubs. I don't see much Eastern Europe expansion coming for CO, the real additions will be to Asia/Africa with the 787, IMO.

I disagree. While there may be limitations in operational growth at EWR there are numerous markets that CO has not considered due to the lack of an aircraft like the 763ER as well as a shortage of 762ER and 764ER aircraft. Personally, I'd rather see the 763ERs listed in my last post considered for new EWR service to: PRG, VIE, WAW. DME, VCE, IST, HEL, BUD, NCE, OTP, ZAG, STR, etc. Some of these markets can make sense and "slots"/gates would have to come from some creative consolidation of services, aircraft towing off and back on the gates , etc.

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 28):I disagree. While there may be limitations in operational growth at EWR there are numerous markets that CO has not considered due to the lack of an aircraft like the 763ER as well as a shortage of 762ER and 764ER aircraft. Personally, I'd rather see the 763ERs listed in my last post considered for new EWR service to: PRG, VIE, WAW. DME, VCE, IST, HEL, BUD, NCE, OTP, ZAG, STR, etc. Some of these markets can make sense and "slots"/gates would have to come from some creative consolidation of services, aircraft towing off and back on the gates , etc.

Check. CO needs to diversify it's in the NYC market. DL covers more ground out of JFK than CO does internationally and why? CO has had the lack of aircraft do it the last 5-10 years. You can only stretch the legs of the 757 so far.

Quoting CODC10 (Reply 26):It's no secret that business travelers prefer flexibility in schedules, and with multiple departures to most destinations, CO can offer the all-important NYC traveler more options than other carriers. I

UA/CO can dictate what they feel is right and their customer loyalty base will likely follow. If they shave a few frequencies off of say CLT to 4 320s or go from 2x 757 to 1 daily 767 to GLA, the business travelers will deal. Besides, if they are flying out of EWR where else are they going to go? They are at UA's mercy if they want nonstop flights.

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 30):
UA/CO can dictate what they feel is right and their customer loyalty base will likely follow.

Unfortunately I think this is true... to an extent. CO's greater frequencies ex-EWR give it a competitive advantage over carriers like AA and DL, who largely operate single-daily service to most transatlantic destinations outside of LHR. Taking this away and replacing with a single 767 flight not only reduces capacity but also strips a potential differentiating factor that is a driver of business to the airline. I'm not saying it won't happen, but there is an economic benefit to operating a second transatlantic bank that the new carrier will consider.

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 27):I thought CO was doing really well in the late 1990s when they were buying these planes? Financing new planes seemed like something they were more capable of at the time compared to other carriers.

CO purchased or leased over 100 new 737/757/767/777 aircraft in this time and built in a fairly strong rate of annual growth from about 1996-2002, but in 1998/99 projected the DC-10 to remain in service until 2004. After 9/11, the DC-10s were immediately grounded and 10 767 orders were canceled shortly thereafter, which was probably a prudent decision at the time. Any orders that would have been financed during the late 1990s halcyon days in the airline industry would have been fulfilled by 2005 or so, which would have likely been too early. CO is still feeling the effects from the immediate 9/11-related pulldown of widebody capacity, and will only fully overcome it once the 787 orders begin to roll in and the carrier can again plan longer term rates of rational growth fueled by new widebody deliveries.

I think IST, WAW, DME, VIE are realistic, in that order, given Star Alliance ties. PRG, VCE, HEL, BUD, and NCE are probably on the radar, but less of a priority due to their strong affiliations with SkyTeam and OW. I'm not sure if we'll see OTP, ZAG, or STR, though. I still believe the major growth will be in Asia and Africa. DXB, BLR, ICN, LOS, JNB, HND, KIX, plus an additional HKG are distinct possibilities.

The 744 is probably too big for EWR-GRU, but the departure out of EWR to NRT is too early to arrive from Europe. The IAH-SA flight could operate to EZE instead, but it would make sense to have 744s at one SA airport.

[Edited 2010-08-17 23:17:34]

25 CODC10
: CO9 EWR-NRT is often operated by the inbound CO91 TLV-EWR, which arrives EWR around 4:45am. I think a 744 on at least one EWR-TLV is a no-brainer, so

26 CALPSAFltSkeds
: That's a great idea. hadn't thought of TLV. Don't think India would work with a 744. EZE may make more sense than GRU. How about this pattern? Pretty

27 TOMMY767
: The 744 would be good for EWR-Tel Aviv, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Beijing, London/Heathrow and maybe Rome during peak season. Who the hell knows what UA will

28 Transpac787
: EWR-TXL is not the longest TATL 757 route that's ever been operated, not by a long shot. Although, the RR motors do put the CO ships at a significant

29 jfr
: As I recall, it wasn't too may years ago that UA was flying double-daiies to Seoul.